[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 124 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10280-S10285]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside just for the consideration of an amendment 
offered by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5240

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the 
bill, and I thank my two colleagues who, for various reasons, at this 
point in time have an interest in the floor procedure and have 
permitted me, as a matter of Senatorial courtesy, to proceed with the 
following amendment which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5240. On page 53, beginning on line 23, 
     strike ``and in compliance with the reprogramming 
     guidelines of the appropriate Committee of the House and 
     Senate.''

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to commend the 
Appropriations Committee, subcommittee Chairman Shelby and Senator 
Kerrey for their efforts in including funding for security requirements 
in both the new construction and repair and alterations categories for 
the Federal buildings program of the General Services Administration in 
the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, postal appropriations bill.
  The current security environment is uncertain and variable. 
Unforeseen circumstances, and events can radically change the 
requirements for security expenditures in real time and at a moment's 
notice as witnessed by recent tragic events in our Nation.
  Current language in the Senate appropriations bill requires 
compliance with formal reprogramming processes in order to use funds 
for security purposes. While this requirement is an appropriate check 
on security expenditures, and I commend my colleagues for their swift 
action in this area in the past, I remain concerned that during a 
congressional recess, a delay in the implementation of reprogramming 
measures for security could impede actions necessary for the immediate 
protection of our Federal work force.
  My amendment would allow GSA to use any funds previously appropriated 
for repairs and alterations and building operations and rental space to 
meet minimum standards for security upon notification of the 
Appropriations Committee of the House and Senate that such a 
determination had been made.
  I would also request that should my amendment be agreed to, 
clarifying report language be added stating the following:

       The Committee has included requested funding for security 
     as a line item in both New Construction and Repairs and 
     Alterations in addition to amounts requested in Basic 
     Repairs. A provision authorizing the use of other repair 
     funds has also been included to ensure that the GSA can 
     respond quickly to safety and security requirements as they 
     are identified. Safety and security concerns are to be 
     addressed as a top priority in using capital funds provided 
     in the bill.

  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, with oversight responsibility over the General Services 
Administration, I have been pleased with GSA's actions to date in 
meeting an enhanced level of security at GSA controlled buildings and 
facilities. I would like to commend the Appropriations Committee for 
actions taken following the Oklahoma City bombing in the fiscal year 
1995 legislation, continuing reprogramming efforts approved by both the 
authorizers and appropriators in fiscal year 1996, and now in the 
Treasury, postal appropriations bill that we have before us for fiscal 
year 1997.
  I think that all of my colleagues would agree that in light of the 
new threatening environment we are under, resulting from incidents of 
domestic terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing, providing a safe and 
secure environment for our Federal work forces and visitors to our 
Federal buildings should be the highest priority.
  That is the intention of this amendment. I am pleased to learn from 
the distinguished manager, the Senator from Nebraska, it appears it is 
acceptable. And Senator Shelby has, likewise, indicated that.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, both Senator Shelby and I have looked at 
this amendment. We agree it is a good amendment. We appreciate the 
Senator from Virginia bringing it to our attention, and we are willing 
to accept it.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5240) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERREY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment, and the Kassebaum amendment thereto, be laid aside 
in status quo. In explanation of that unanimous consent request, 
Senator Kassebaum is, I believe, in a meeting having to do with the FDA 
reform. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about how to 
handle these two amendments. The Senator from Oregon is here and is 
continuing to pursue his desire in this effort. He has been willing to 
have these set aside for now so we can take up other issues, and 
amendments can perhaps be agreed to, and perhaps other amendments can 
be debated and voted on, if necessary. We will continue to work to see 
how we can resolve that. I make that unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, and I do not intend to 
object, I just want it understood that I have spent the last couple of 
hours trying to work, in a bipartisan way, to address this, to address 
the budgetary concerns. I want the majority leader, Senator Lott, to 
understand that I have no interest in prolonging this. I do want to 
protect the rights of these vulnerable patients and get that done 
today. But I have no desire to prolong this.
  Mr. President, we are going to continue, as the majority leader 
requested,

[[Page S10281]]

to work to try to fashion something that is acceptable. We thought we 
had something a minute ago, but, apparently, we have some more work to 
do.
  With that, I withdraw my reservation. I appreciate the majority 
leader trying to help us by setting that aside.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, was that request agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thought the Senator from Alabama was rising 
to speak on the request.
  Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has been done.


                           Amendment No. 5224

(Purpose: To limit the use of funds to provide for Federal agencies to 
 furnish commercially available property or services to other Federal 
                               agencies)

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5224.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VI add the following:
       Sec. 646. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds appropriated by this or any other Act may be used 
     by the Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency, 
     to publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or 
     circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that 
     would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially 
     available property or service to any other department or 
     agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular, 
     or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed 
     under subsection (b).
       (b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable 
     to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or 
     authority referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A requirement for a comparison between the cost of 
     providing the property or service concerned through the 
     agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or 
     service through the private sector.
       (B) A requirement for cost and performance benchmarks 
     relating to the property or service provided relative to 
     comparable services provided by other government agencies and 
     contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the 
     cost and provision of such property or service by the agency 
     concerned or the Office of Management and Budget.

                    Amendment No. 5224, As Modified

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 5224), as modified, is as follows:
       At the end of title VI add the following:
       Sec. 646. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds appropriated by this or any other Act may be used 
     by the Office of Management and Budget, or any other agency, 
     to publish, promulgate, or enforce any policy, regulation, or 
     circular, or any rule or authority in any other form, that 
     would permit any Federal agency to provide a commercially 
     available property or service to any other department or 
     agency of government unless the policy, regulation, circular, 
     or other rule or authority meets the requirements prescribed 
     under subsection (b).
       (b)(1) Not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall prescribe regulations applicable 
     to any policy regulation, circular, or other rule or 
     authority referred to in subsection (a).
       (2) The requirements prescribed under paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A requirement for a comparison between the cost of 
     providing the property or service concerned through the 
     agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or 
     service through the private sector.
       (B) A requirement for cost and performance benchmarks 
     relating to the property or service provided relative to 
     comparable services provided by other government agencies and 
     contractors in order to permit effective oversight of the 
     cost and provision of such property or service by the agency 
     concerned or the Office of Management and Budget.
       (C) The regulation would not apply to contingency 
     operations associated with a national emergency.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to explain the amendment, if I may, 
and then ask that we have a vote on it. It has to do with the Federal 
Government's policy of more than 40 years that the Government should 
not compete with the private sector in areas in which the private 
sector can legitimately function. In fact, the Government should rely 
on the private sector to supply commercially available goods and 
services.
  However, this policy is too often ignored. For example, the Defense 
Science Board calculates that out of 850,000 full-time positions needed 
to provide commercial services for the military, 640,000 are held by 
Federal employees rather than private sector personnel.
  I want to go back and talk about commercial services, however, 
because the modification that I sent to the desk exempts emergencies 
and exempts factors that are not routinely commercial completely from 
the bill. There is a new administration policy that prompts this 
particular amendment.
  OMB has come out with a policy that grandfathers existing 
Interservice Support Agreements from cost-comparison requirements. In 
other words, it says if you have had this kind of Interservice Support 
Agreement, it is not even necessary to inquire as to what the cost 
would be if, indeed, there would be savings in the private sector.
  The Interservice Support Agreements permit one Federal agency to 
provide goods or services to another agency. This new policy gives 
agencies until October 1, 1997, to go out and recruit business from 
other agencies, without performing any cost analysis.
  The administration implicitly argues that this entrepreneurial 
approach to Government will save the taxpayers money--and they don't 
even know what the cost comparisons are. Some examples of existing 
ISSAs are: Aerial photography, mapping services, laboratory services, 
printing services. Other specific examples are: A U.S. Geological 
Survey was hired by the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the 
High Plains Groundwater Recharge Program. The project took twice as 
long and cost three times as much as the private sector standard.
  In Jacksonville, FL, the Navy Public Works Division recently 
completed a state-of-the-art environmental lab to provide routine 
hazardous waste characterization. These services are already available 
from the private sector, and the Navy intends to offer these services 
now to other Government agencies.
  Mr. President, this is not the concept that most of us have for 
Government. It is common sense, I think, that activities that are 
integral to Government, activities for emergencies, for defense, 
activities such as plane wrecks and all these things, those things, of 
course, are excluded under the bill. But when we are talking about 
routine services that can be provided commercially in the private 
sector, then they should be.
  There are a few examples of direct Government competition with the 
private sector. So there is a new policy that encourages the Federal 
Government to compete with the private sector. I think that is 
philosophically wrong. Certainly, it hurts small business. There isn't 
even competition for projects --no public solicitation--the private 
sector never knows if there is a need that they could fulfill.
  We did this, by the way, in the Wyoming legislature when I was there. 
We had a bill that said that in those areas where the function can be 
commercially carried out, there ought not to be competition by the 
Government, that there ought to be at least an analysis of the cost, 
and a fair analysis, so these things can be done, to the extent that it 
is possible, to save the taxpayers money and do it in the private 
sector. Numerous studies have shown that outsourcing can save the 
Government $9 billion to $10 billion annually.

  Further, it seems to me that this process of having extra commercial 
activities carried on by Government agencies circumvents the 
appropriations process. If an agency is able to do the work for another 
agency, it is likely to have more resources and employees than it 
really needs to fulfill its primary mission. It may be wasting 
taxpayers' resources and may need to be cut back. If an agency 
appropriations is cut and it recruits business, it is circumventing the 
appropriations

[[Page S10282]]

process. The amendment that we have simply indicates that none of the 
dollars in this particular appropriations can be used unless, and the 
rule says:

       A requirement for a comparison between the cost of 
     providing the property or service concerned through the 
     agency concerned and the cost of providing such property or 
     service through the private sector.

  It is very simple. It simply says that you have to take a look at 
letting the private sector do this and get the cost of that before one 
agency provides it to the Government sector for another agency.
  I emphasize that we have been doing it for 40 years. This is a new 
OMB policy. It is a rule for the supplemental handbook. By the way, as 
to the handbook itself, I think we are going to hear--and we have heard 
from one agency, the Defense Department specifically--``Well, we will 
be curtailed on a number of these essential support emergency 
activities.''
  Let me give you the modification first of all. It makes it clear that 
the amendment does not apply to national security. Furthermore, this 
OMB rule has an exemption. Nothing in this amendment would change 
advanced planning for contingencies; therefore, contingencies or 
emergencies, such as the Value Jet crash in the Everglades. There are 
two protections from that kind of thing. One is the rule itself, and 
the other as the amendment to this bill.
  So it just seems to me that if you believe in the idea that the 
Government ought to be contained to those things that are uniquely 
Government activities and that beyond that we ought to go to the 
private sector, we have a broader bill that we have had for some time. 
We intended to have hearings on it. The hearings have been postponed 
twice--once at the request of the minority. So we have been prepared to 
have hearings on the broader bill. This one simply deals with the 
newest OMB supplemental handbook proposition. It says that you have to 
continue to do what you have been doing; and that is consider the cost 
of doing it in the private sector.
  It is hard for me to imagine that anyone can object to the difficulty 
of doing things that can be done in the private sector, and doing them 
in the private sector if they are going to save us money. The idea that 
you can't do it in an emergency is not a valid one. It is not valid 
because of the handbook exemption. It is not valid because of the 
modification that we have put on the bill. This kind of thing, of 
course, simply expands Government.
  I mentioned that we introduced S. 1724, the Freedom From Government 
Competition Act. It causes the Government to go outside. It causes OMB 
to study those things that are inherently governmental functions.
  Senator Stevens plans to hold a hearing on this bill in September. 
The Small Business Committee in the House has already held several 
hearings. But this is a smaller issue. While I am delighted that 
Senator Stevens will be holding hearings on the broader bill, there is 
really no reason for small businesses to be caught under this Clinton 
administration ISSA policy, the Interservice Support Agreement policy. 
The amendment is very simple. It merely reaffirms existing law. It 
would prohibit the appropriation of funds of one agency to provide 
commercially available goods and services for another agency unless the 
cost comparison is done and more oversight is conducted on the 
agreement to provide more information about what we are doing. The 
amendment will create private-sector jobs, which is what we talk about 
all the time on both sides of the aisle. It will help small businesses. 
It will save taxpayer dollars and make Government smaller and more 
efficient.

  Mr. President, the bottom line is we want Government to cost less. 
This is a way to do that.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a 
commonsense amendment, a good-government amendment, and a pro taxpayer 
reform amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 5237 
and offer it as a second-degree amendment to the pending committee 
amendment, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, this is a simple and straightforward 
amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend. Is there 
objection?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I object, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor. Is 
there objection to the unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. GLENN. Yes. There is objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GLENN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor. The 
objection is heard. The Senator from Minnesota has the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I must oppose the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas. The amendment would require 
cost comparisons and cost and performance benchmarks before any Federal 
agency can provide any other Federal agency with property or services.
  I am a very strong supporter of increasing the efficiency of 
Government. Much of my effort over the last few years has been devoted 
to exactly that--passing the Chief Financial Officer Act, expanding 
inspectors general, and with the new procurement legislation we passed 
that was the work of not only the White House in the last 
administration but this administration and our Governmental Affairs 
Committee, as well as people in the Pentagon. So we have a track record 
of working in these areas of increasing the efficiency of Government 
and along with it of having a greater reliance on the private sector 
which we have provided in some of the new procurement legislation for 
providing goods and services to the Government.
  In spite of that, I have difficulty supporting this amendment. Its 
impact, I do not think, has been completely reviewed and I think it is 
unnecessary and perhaps too broad. Let me go into some of that in a 
little more detail.
  First, I must oppose the amendment because a floor amendment on an 
appropriations bill does not provide an adequate opportunity in which 
to consider this far-reaching proposal, and it is, indeed, a far-
reaching proposal. The Governmental Affairs Committee, as I think the 
proponent has already mentioned, actually has a hearing scheduled for 
next week, September 19, on Senator Thomas' related bill, S. 1724. I 
know we have had several hearings put off, and I understand that, and I 
understand the frustrations of people when they do not get appropriate 
hearings in committee to go ahead and opt for direct floor action. But 
consideration in committee will consider that legislation that also 
addresses Government and private sector issues. Consideration by the 
committee with substantive jurisdiction is needed before this proposal 
should be considered on the Senate floor. To bring the amendment to the 
floor when the sponsor has a hearing in only 1 week before the 
appropriate committee I do not feel is the best way to proceed, the 
best informed way to proceed on this issue.
  Second, it is my feeling, having been into some of these things over 
the last several years, the amendment is unnecessary. The economy act 
at section 1535 of title XXXI of the United States Code already 
requires that an agency head determine that goods or services cannot be 
provided as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise before 
going to another agency for those goods or services. The cost and 
performance requirement of the present amendment would on their face 
have basically the same result as the economy act.
  The relation of the amendment to the current law is exactly the sort 
of

[[Page S10283]]

issue that should be discussed at a committee hearing. I think we also 
need to examine the relation of the OMB regulations required by the 
amendment to OMB's circular A-76 that currently governs agency cost 
comparisons with private sector goods and services. To accept an 
amendment in the Chamber that on its face largely duplicates existing 
law and regulation is not the best way to proceed.
  This overlap also concerns me with regard to the franchise fund 
pilots created by the Government Management Reform Act, GMRA, of 1994, 
which is Public Law 103-356. That act was a bipartisan effort of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and it passed unanimously in the 
Senate. The GMRA, the Government Management Reform Act, franchise fund 
pilots open up competition between agency service providers and the 
private sector for common administrative services. This program uses 
basic market force principles to search for better, quicker, and 
cheaper services. OMB is currently overseeing this program, and we 
should not enact new legislation that would affect it until we hear 
from OMB as to how this competition project is working.
  My third objection to the amendment is that it is too broad. For 
example, in its original version it had no exemption for national 
security emergencies or danger to public health or safety.
  Let me say right there that we had a letter from the Under Secretary 
of the Navy, John Hamre, who is working in these areas of better 
efficiency over in the Defense Department, and he felt it really gave a 
lot of trouble in this particular area.
  I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Under Secretary of Defense,

                                Washington DC, September 11, 1996.
     Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
         General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I have just learned of an amendment that 
     Senator Thomas is proposing to offer on the Appropriations 
     Bill for the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. 
     The amendment would require that before one federal agency 
     can provide a service to another agency a cost comparison for 
     providing the service would have to be made between the 
     private sector and the government agency.
       I recognize that the motivations behind this amendment are 
     very worthwhile. We should use the private sector as much as 
     possible for providing services; however, the unintended 
     consequences of this amendment would be devastating to many 
     of the cross agency operations that are now being conducted.
       In its current form, this amendment could cost lives and 
     delay essential support that has to occur immediately in time 
     of emergency. Had this amendment been in place in the past, 
     the Department of Defense (DOD) could not have transported 
     equipment and material immediately for such catastrophes as 
     Hurricane Andrew, the Oklahoma City bombing, the search for 
     survivors and aircraft parts following the explosion of TWA 
     800, and numerous earthquake, fire and flood demands that are 
     placed on the Department. These are extensive inter-agency 
     arrangements for DOD support in times of emergency that are 
     totally undermined by this amendment.
       I strongly urge you to defer action on the amendment being 
     offered by Senator Thomas until you have had an opportunity 
     to hold a hearing on the implications of the amendment. This 
     proposal while well intended, has far reaching consequences 
     which must be studied and understood.

                                                    John J. Hamre.

  Mr. GLENN. I understand though that this will be modified to 
accommodate that problem. I have not seen the modification yet 
specifically, but I understand that Senator Thomas has modified his 
amendment to address concerns raised by the Department of Defense 
concerning national emergencies and that was one of the problems. I 
understand the amendment will provide an exemption for national 
security contingencies. Maybe that will solve the problem, maybe it 
will not, but that is a concern about the amendment, and I think the 
scope of it is still unclear.
  If enacted into law in its original version, the amendment would 
appear to prohibit, for instance, some other things, and I do not know 
whether these are covered under contingencies or not. It would appear 
to prohibit the CIA from contracting with NSA or DIA, the National 
Security Agency or the Defense Intelligence Agency, for classified 
goods or services--for example, a spy satellite or equipment--without 
performing cost comparisons and benchmarks. While OMB might try to 
provide for such exemptions in the regulations required by the 
amendment, the amendment, as I understood it, provides no limitations 
on its comprehensive scope.
  I am also concerned about the amendment's references to ``enforcing 
any policy or any authority in any other form.'' I put that in quotes, 
concerned about the amendment's reference to ``enforcing any policy or 
any authority in any other form.''
  I am not certain what this might include. It could be interpreted to 
cover the budget. It would seem even to cover apportionment of funds. 
After all, when OMB apportions funds, it conveys an authority to outlay 
funds. How would this impact on interagency activities? I am not sure. 
Maybe it would be good. Maybe it would be bad. But these terms do 
concern me. I do not believe we should enact into law such an 
overarching requirement, a very major piece of legislation, without 
careful consideration of its scope and necessary exemptions.
  The broad language of the amendment might also cover FFRDC's. Many 
times agencies contract with another agency such as DOE for goods or 
services to be provided by FFRDC, and this arrangement would seem to be 
covered by the amendment. I do not believe the Senate has sufficiently 
considered this proposal in order to subject the National Labs, the 
Center for Naval Analysis, and other FFRDC's with the blanket 
requirements of this amendment, and they would be affected by it. They 
could not help but be affected by it.
  Finally, I am concerned that there could be other situations that 
this amendment would needlessly burden with reporting and study 
requirements. There could be instances in which an agency contracts for 
goods or services that another agency procures from other sources, even 
the private sector. There are also revolving funds and many interagency 
reimbursable activities that would appear to be covered by the 
amendment. And to subject all such activities to the terms of this 
amendment, without certainty about the impact, concerns me very much.

  Again, the sponsors of the amendment may hope that OMB will provide 
the right exemptions for the right cases. But the text of the amendment 
is very, very comprehensive. Again, this is just another reason why I 
think we should not enact into law legislative language of such broad 
scope--not today, anyway.
  Next week, OMB's Deputy Director for Management, John Koskinen, will 
testify before the Governmental Affairs Committee on various OMB and 
other agency initiatives to increase agency reliance on the private 
sector. That is one of the subjects of the hearing, and to create 
incentives for agencies to search for more economical ways to procure 
goods and services. That hearing will be very informative as to this 
debate. It should include this amendment, and that is where I think we 
should consider this amendment, not here on the appropriations 
legislation.
  So I think I do not see any problem with recommending to my 
colleagues, with something of this broad a scope--and this is not an 
insignificant amendment, this is a major step in whatever direction it 
would be leading and is very, very far-reaching--I think, to wait 1 
week until the head of OMB can give his testimony and give his opinion 
on this and indicate to us how this would operate at the executive 
branch level. It seems to me, that is not a delay that is intolerable.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I 
think it is very far-reaching. It is not an innocuous little amendment; 
it is one that is very far-reaching, and after we know the scope of it 
better, it might be something I could well support. But I would like to 
have Mr. Koskinen's testimony on it and have it before the committee so 
we could explore, in a little bit more detail, the ramifications of 
this or the implications of it before we vote on it in an 
appropriations bill acting on the floor today.
  Mr. President, for all those reasons, I oppose the legislation and 
hope my colleagues support that position. I yield the floor.

[[Page S10284]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SANTORUM). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague 
from Ohio. Let me see if I cannot respond to some of them.
  First of all, they talk about a hearing. We have delayed hearings 
twice now. We have asked for hearings, had them set up, they have been 
delayed--once at Senator Glenn's request. I think it is time we move 
forward with this proposition.
  It is a narrow amendment. It is not a broad amendment. It is not a 
wide-reaching amendment. As a matter of fact, it deals only with 
circular No. A-76 and the language there where OMB has said, effective 
October 1997, ``The cost comparison requirements of this supplemental 
handbook will not apply to existing or renewed ISSA or consolidation of 
commercial services.''
  This is not the broad bill that we have asked for a hearing on. It is 
not nearly as broad as I think it ought to be to effect this idea that 
we ought to be doing these things in the private sector. This notion 
that somehow we are going to get more efficiency out of doing it out of 
Government is one, I think, we have gotten long past. So we will be 
doing that, and we will be going further. This one only has to do with 
the changes that have been made by OMB.

  The idea, of course, that it will affect the letter that the Senator 
read from the Department of Defense probably is not applicable in the 
first place. However, we have, in order to make sure that is not the 
case, amended and changed--modified the amendment with the language 
that ``the regulations would not apply to contingency operations 
associated with a national emergency.'' Clearly, I think that does 
that.
  I want to interject here to ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Stevens, the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
Senator Frahm be added as cosponsors to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. The idea that is far-sweeping and far-ranging is that 
this has been in place for all these years until now. OMB simply 
changed it. It puts it back where it was, before OMB changed this. So 
the idea that it is an unknown is simply not true. It is simply not the 
case. It simply says to OMB, you cannot enforce these new rules that 
you put out that have changed what we have been doing now forever. So 
that is really what it amounts to.
  I think it is very important that we move on these. We have had some 
other debates today about whether there have been hearings or whether 
there have not been hearings. It depends on which side you are on as to 
whether that is important. But the fact is, this is a relatively minor 
change and one that simply puts us back to where it is. If, in the 
hearings that subsequently occur, there is evidence that the OMB change 
is appropriate, then I urge the committee to authorize, in committee, 
them to do that. In the meantime, I think we ought not remove the 
requirements, the simple requirements that if you are going to offer a 
service to another agency--not services for yourself, offer them for 
another agency, which is a growing tendency within Government--that, 
first of all, you have to consider the outrageous notion of seeing if 
there is an alternative that is less expensive. That is really not very 
difficult. It is really not a new idea. Most people who do significant 
work contracting try to get more than one idea of what it costs. That 
is what we are talking about here.
  As a matter of fact, I mentioned the idea that the statute on 
efficiency continues to exist. The problem is OMB is not abiding by it. 
That is the problem. It does continue to exist. It does say, yet, in 
the statute, that we ought to be doing this stuff in the private 
sector. The problem is, it is not being adhered to. The procurement act 
provides that an agency ``can provide another agency with goods and 
services if the goods and services cannot be provided by contract as 
conveniently or cheaply as a commercial enterprise.'' That is the law, 
but the rule negates that. That is what we are talking about. It is not 
a widespread change, not an unknown. It simply says we ought to go by 
what it says in the economy act, and not change it by OMB.
  So, I suppose if we are going to deal with a broader bill, which I 
hope we do--I hope we make some conversions more to private sector 
use--then I agree we ought to take a look at it in the committee. This 
part of it, however, simply says, live under the law. It simply says, 
do not change the law. Go ahead and ask that, when you want to provide 
services to another agency, that the private sector ought to be 
examined first to see if, indeed, that is a more efficient and more 
effective way to provide those services.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. THOMAS. We will ask when there are more people here.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 
yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I yield.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after consultation with the Democratic 
leader and with the hope we can get a finite list and begin to work 
through these amendments, as we have done over the past couple of 
weeks, so we can get an agreement on amendments that we must, in fact, 
have votes on, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only 
first-degree amendments remaining in order to the Treasury-Postal 
Service appropriations bill; that they be subject to second-degree 
amendments which are relevant to the first-degree amendment; that they 
may be offered in the first degree or in the second degree to a 
committee amendment; that the committee amendments be subject to 
second-degree amendments which are either on the list or relevant to an 
amendment on the list, if that amendment has been offered to the 
committee amendment; that no motions to recommit be in order and that 
upon the disposition of these amendments and the committee amendments 
the bill be read for a third time.
  Mr. President, I submit for the Record the list. It is at the desk. 
The distinguished Democratic leader has a copy of this list.
  The list is as follows:

Republican Amendments to H.R. 3756, the Treasury-Postal Appropriations 
                                  Bill

       Abraham--Relevant.
       Shelby--Managers amendments.
       Shelby--Authority for GSA to work with Smithsonian to 
     determine office space.
       Stevens--Relevant.
       Stevens--(1) Allow ACIR to use non-appropriated funds; (2) 
     IRS commission.
       Stevens--(1) Kodiak, Alaska Port of Entry Designation; (2) 
     FOIA/privacy.
       Grassley--Add $28 million to USCS; REDUCE TSM.
       Inhofe--Strike Section 404(FPS position repeal).
       Thomas--Inter-service Support Agreement.
       Hatfield--Localflex pilot program.
       Hatfield--Provide $1,450,000 for renovation of Pioneer 
     Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
       Faircloth--(1) Prohibit IRS from using color printing 
     except when describing tax law changes; (2) Social Security 
     Administration.
       Helms--Health care provider incentive plans.
       Brown--Financial Management Bill.
       Grams--Improve IRS telephone service.
       Hutchison--Border Stations.
       Kassebaum--(1) Job Training; (2) Relevant.
       Lott--(1) Education; Relevant.
       Lott--(1) Terrorism; Relevant.
       Lott--(1) Drugs; Relevant.
       Lott--(1) IRS; Relevant.
       Nickles--re: Welfare.
       Nickles--Workers rights.
       Nickles--Presidential imunities.
       Nickles--Relevant.
       Hatch--Relevant.
       Hatch--Relevant.
       McCain--HIDTA Funding.
       McCain--Federal overtime pay.
       McCain--Udall Foundation.
       McCain--Relevant.
       Jeffords--Relevant.
       Domenici--Relevant.
       Ashcroft--Working flexibility.
       Ashcroft--Relevant.
       Thomas--Limit fund for Fed. Agencies to furnish 
     commercially available services to other Fed. Agencies.
       Coverdell--Relevant.
       Coverdell--Relevant.
       Gramm--Border stations.
       Thompson--GSA telephone pilot project.
       D'Amato--TWA crash.
       D'Amato--Commemorative coin.
       Warner--GSA building security.
       Inhofe--Sec. 404.
       Lott--Relevant.
       Lott--Relevant.

                             TPO Amendments

       Biden--(1) Drugs; (2) Drugs.

[[Page S10285]]

       Bingaman--Energy savings.
       Boxer--(1) Junk guns; (2) Pensions.
       Bryan--(1) COLA for judges; (2) White House Travel (w/
     Levin/Reid); (3) Congressional pension.
       Byrd--(1) Telecommuting center/W.VA; (2) Relevant.
       Daschle--(1) Congressional employees health insurance; (2) 
     Education; (3) Arson & Explosive repository; (4) Relevant; 
     (5) Relevant; (6) Presidential immunities; (7) Welfare.
       Dorgan--Indian Housing.
       Feingold--Committee amdt p 129.
       Feinstein--(1) Hate crimes (w/Wyden); (2) Relevant; (3) 
     Tagents.
       Graham--(1) Medicare receipts using emergency care; (2) 
     Welfare formula fairness.
       Hollings--Death benefits.
       Kennedy--(1) Physicians gag (w/Wyden); (2) Education; (3) 
     Workers protection; (4) Legal services.
       Kerrey--(1) Managers package; (2) IRS review; (3) Relevant.
       Kerry-Feinstein--(1) Relevant; (2) Tagents.
       Kohl--Gun free school zones.
       Lautenberg--Domestic abusers guns.
       Levin--(1) White House travel (w/Reid); (2) SoS U.S./Japan 
     auto.
       Moseley-Braun--Age discrimination.
       Reid--(1) White House Travel (w/Levin); (2) Judges' pay.
       Simon--(1) Desalinization; (2) Pension auditing.
       Wyden--Physician's gag (W/Kennedy).

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to say right here that if there 
are any additions made to this list, it will be only after consultation 
and agreement between the two leaders.
  That is the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his cooperation. It 
is a rather lengthy list, unfortunately, but now we have, at least, a 
list we can work on. Hopefully, we will both be able to work through 
getting these amendments removed if they are not really relevant to 
this bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me just say, the majority leader and 
I have had the opportunity in the last couple hours to talk to our 
Members and to urge their cooperation in coming forth with prospective 
amendments. I would emphasize that they are prospective. I hope that in 
many cases Senators would not feel compelled to offer them. Our hope is 
that we can resolve this bill some time in the not-too-distant future.
  I hope that all of our colleagues can work with us to limit the list 
of amendments, to limit the debate on the amendments, once they are 
called up, and to see if we cannot complete our work. I have asked 
Members of our leadership to work with our caucus in order to put this 
list together now in a realistic fashion. And I hope that only in those 
cases where Senators truly felt that it was essential that the 
amendment be offered on this bill, that it be done so.
  So I am urging cooperation, in concert with the majority leader, in 
the hope that we can come to some completion successfully on this bill 
some time in the not-too-distant future.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, did we get unanimous consent agreement on 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.

                          ____________________